North Penn School District v. North Penn Education Ass'n
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 342
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- During the 2009-2014 CBA, the District extended the prior agreement for 2009-2010 while negotiations continued.
- The District employs fifteen permanent per diem substitutes (PPD) who fill in daily for absent teachers for the contract year.
- On September 10, 2009, the Association grieved that the District violated the CBA by not providing paid sick leave to PPD substitutes.
- Arbitrator Margaret Brogan found that pursuant to Section 11-1154(a) of the School Code, PPD substitutes are entitled to paid sick leave, and that such rights may not be waived by contract.
- The District petitioned to vacate the award in October 2010; the Common Pleas Court denied the petition in August 2011, and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 11-1154(a) authorizes sick leave for PPD substitutes | District argues only 'professional' or 'temporary professional' employees are covered. | Association contends substitutes providing professional services are covered as professionals. | Yes; award upheld that PPDs are entitled to sick leave. |
| Whether the award draws its essence from the CBA | District contends the award fails to derive from the CBA and misreads the School Code. | Association asserts the award rationally derives from the CBA and School Code. | Yes; the award draws its essence from the CBA. |
| Whether the public policy exception to the essence test applies | District argues the award contravenes well-defined public policy. | Association argues the public policy exception is narrow and not met here. | No; public policy exception does not void the award. |
| Whether recognizing PPDs as qualified for sick leave would affect broader public employment norms | District asserts it would broaden status to affect tenure/evaluation rights. | Association disputes broader implications and relies on targeted interpretation. | No; decision limited to facts and the CBA and does not alter tenure-like rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scranton School District v. Weiss, 521 Pa. 528 (Pa. 1989) (supports treating substitutes as professional employees for sabbatical/benefit purposes)
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit No. 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit No. 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Ass'n, 595 Pa. 648 (Pa. 2007) (public policy exception to essence test requires well-defined policy)
- Midland Borough School District v. Midland Education Association, 532 Pa. 530 (Pa. 1992) (essence test framework for reviewing arbitration awards)
- Coatesville Area School District v. Coatesville Area Teachers' Association/PSEA, 978 A.2d 413 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (describes deferential essence test standard)
- City of Bradford v. Teamsters Local Union No. 110, 25 A.3d 408 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (public policy considerations in public employment context)
- Scranton School District v. Weiss, 537 A.2d 910 (Pa.Cmwlth.1988) (illustrates counting substitute years toward professional service for certain protections)
- Richland Education Association v. Richland Area School District, 53 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 367 (Pa.Cmwlth.1980) (substitute positions can be treated as professional employe for certain purposes)